Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Yes, I realize there are a dozen thread on the subject, but I didn't want this to get lost in the bickering and posturing that's going on in the other threads.

I put some work into a "gun control" proposal. One that might resolve a few of the issues we've come across. Granted, this isn't going to make everyone happy on both sides, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

Anyway, to begin, NY State requires that you have a permit to buy/own a handgun of any type (post 1898). To obtain this permit, you must have a minimum of four (4) character references that are of no relation to you (in my case, I needed 6 references because only 2 of my references lived within the county I was applying). Also, you must pass a state/federal background check as well as having your fingerprints and photos added to the state/federal databases.

Now, a permit is not required to buy/own a long gun, but a call to the FBI to confirm that you are not a criminal is required.

So using this model, we can tweak this system a bit to make it much, much more difficult to have firearms of any type get into the "wrong" hands. To start, a firearm license is required for any and all firearm purchases and ownership. My outline is in the quote box:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth's Firearm Licensing Requirements

1. Initial License Application.

To obtain license, you must meet each of the following requirements:

Be subject to a criminal background check at both State and Federal levels.

Fingerprints and photographs which are to be stored and accessible by both State and Federal authorities.

Be subject to a personal interview by the County Sheriff’s office (or equivalent).

Provide a minimum of four (4) character references that are of no direct relation to the applicant. References must:

Reside within the county of applicant.

Must be citizens of the USA

Must be a minimum age of 25

Must be an acquaintance of the applicant for a minimum of three (3) years. (These references will be interviewed by phone or in person by the County Sheriff’s office.)

Provide a minimum of one (1) doctor’s reference confirming that no medical conditions (mental or physical) would inhibit the applicant’s safe use of any firearm. Applicant must be a patient of referenced doctor for a minimum of three (3) years.

Applicant must also attend a “Safe Handling, Operation, and Security of Firearms” class and receive a passing grade on the subsequent paper exam. Exam and certificate signed by an authorized instructor will be filed and permanently kept with the permit application. Cost for this class is not to exceed $50 USD.

Applicant must also provide proof of the ability to secure any and all firearms safely in a locking container. This could be a safe or secure room, or off-site location (such as a locker at a firing range).

This initial license application fee is not to exceed $125 USD.

2. License Holder

Once license is obtained, all firearm purchases must be recorded to the license holder with the following information:

Firearm Type

Caliber

Serial Number

All sales/trades/transfers of firearms must be done through a FFL dealer. Private sales of any firearm are prohibited.

3. License Renewal.

License renewals are required every five (5) years at a cost not to exceed $35 USD.

License holder must show proof of attendance to a “Safe Handling, Operation, and Security of Firearms” refresher course within the last ninety (90) days. (This is a short 3 hour class designed specifically for reiteration/refresher. No written exam is done with this version of the course.) There is no cost for this course.

License holder must have doctor complete form 1234A confirming that no medical conditions (mental or physical) would inhibit the applicant’s safe use of any firearm.

4. Age Requirements:

You may apply for and obtain a Firearm License at age 18.

However, an individual is prohibited from buying/owning a handgun until the individual reaches age 21.

Please feel free to recommend changes/additions/omissions. Please keep the discussion to the OP and leave the 2nd Amendment, AWB, need, gun design, moral discussions, etc. to the other threads.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

I really don't like 4 character references. I really don't know if I could come up with 4 and I am a super upstanding citizen. A gun "nut" could easily get 4 other gun "nuts" to vouch for them.

As much as I am for better controls over who can have a gun it seems there are plenty of ways to avoid all of them. The only ones I don't want having guns are the ones that just want to kill another person with them without warning, how do we stop that from happening?

Those proposals are even more stringent that what is required in the UK. Here there is no fingerprinting or photographing, no doctors reference required, only two referees are used and there is no obligatory or even voluntary safety course.

All of these fees and classes and checks just disenfranchise the poor...

We can't even require a $10 ID card to make sure voting is fair and square because it disenfranchises the poor...

You sure? NY already charges these fees for a handgun permit ($105 for filing, $50 for a safety course (though, sometimes you can get them for free), and depending on the county, an addition $75 for fingerprinting (though, my county is free). Plus $3 for each time you make an addition/subtraction of a handgun to your permit.

Besides, if you can afford $250 and (way) up for a gun of any type, not sure you can call the fees "disenfranchising the poor".

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

I really don't like 4 character references. I really don't know if I could come up with 4 and I am a super upstanding citizen. A gun "nut" could easily get 4 other gun "nuts" to vouch for them.

Agreed. But again, NY already has this rule in place to obtain a handgun permit.

Quote:

As much as I am for better controls over who can have a gun it seems there are plenty of ways to avoid all of them. The only ones I don't want having guns are the ones that just want to kill another person with them without warning, how do we stop that from happening?

That's were the doctor reference comes in...both initially and at each renewal.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

You sure? NY already charges these fees for a handgun permit ($105 for filing, $50 for a safety course (though, sometimes you can get them for free), and depending on the county, an addition $75 for fingerprinting (though, my county is free). Plus $3 for each time you make an addition/subtraction of a handgun to your permit.

Besides, if you can afford $250 and (way) up for a gun of any type, not sure you can call the fees "disenfranchising the poor".

Of course they disenfranchise the poor, but gun ownership is an easy target, so few people care.

NYC restricts the size of fountain drinks, so I'm not sure that NY state is a good example of what Americans will tolerate.

Are gun crimes in NY especially low?

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

Those proposals are even more stringent that what is required in the UK. Here there is no fingerprinting or photographing, no doctors reference required, only two referees are used and there is no obligatory or even voluntary safety course.

I realize that...I designed them to intentionally be stringent. Remember, I based this off of the NY law for a handgun permit that is already in place, with a few added requirements (doctor note, renewals, secure area).

I put in each requirement for a reason.

The doctors note does not have to be specific at all. Let's say an applicant does have a mental condition, the doctor simply states that he feels the applicant cannot safely handle a firearm. Period.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

I realize that...I designed them to intentionally be stringent. Remember, I based this off of the NY law for a handgun permit that is already in place, with a few added requirements (doctor note, renewals, secure area).

I put in each requirement for a reason.

The doctors note does not have to be specific at all. Let's say an applicant does have a mental condition, the doctor simply states that he feels the applicant cannot safely handle a firearm. Period.

If he can safely handle a firearm, then let him have one...

Shooting up a school is not safely handling a firearm, nor is robbing a 7-11, or mugging a citizen...

Poor people probably can't afford a gun safe, either.

I don't object to the training, but if the state is going to require it, and it's expensive, it seems like it's leading to a class problem where certain classes of people can afford to have guns and other classes can't.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

Provide a minimum of one (1) doctor’s reference confirming that no medical conditions (mental or physical) would inhibit the applicant’s safe use of any firearm. Applicant must be a patient of referenced doctor for a minimum of three (3) years.

No, no...meaning if the applicant has a mental illness (or warning signs), then the doctor can simply say he doesn't believe the applicant can be trusted with a firearm.

Quote:

Poor people probably can't afford a gun safe, either.

You keep coming back to this, and while provisions can be made to waive fees, I seriously want to know why you think a poor person would be willing to plop down a couple hundred bucks a on gun to begin with? Plus, I said a safe or "other means"...I didn't say a safe is absolutely required.

Quote:

I don't object to the training, but if the state is going to require it, and it's expensive, it seems like it's leading to a class problem where certain classes of people can afford to have guns and other classes can't.

$50 is not expensive, and again, we can waive that fee if the applicant can show financial hardship.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

No, no...meaning if the applicant has a mental illness (or warning signs), then the doctor can simply say he doesn't believe the applicant can be trusted with a firearm.

You keep coming back to this, and while provisions can be made to waive fees, I seriously want to know why you think a poor person would be willing to plop down a couple hundred bucks a on gun to begin with? Plus, I said a safe or "other means"...I didn't say a safe is absolutely required.

$50 is not expensive, and again, we can waive that fee if the applicant can show financial hardship.

Now I have to show financial hardship, too? Just how many hoops are there before I can shoot a handgun down at the farm?

Why not just tell me I can't have one instead of playing these games?

If you think a US Government mandated safe storage system or area will be cheap, then I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap.

A used handgun or rifle would not be anywhere near a couple hundred bucks here in NC.

Well, it wouldn't have been a few months ago...

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

And what happens when a doctor does make such a statement...and someone inevitably goes on a shooting rampage. First thing that will happen is they will look up which doctor made such a statement regarding the shooter. Its a huge liability issue.

Now I have to show financial hardship, too? Just how many hoops are there before I can shoot a handgun down at the farm?

Why not just tell me I can't have one instead of playing these games?

Your poor, can afford a handgun, can afford ammunition, and a trip to the farm??! You sure you're poor?

Quote:

If you think a US Government mandated safe storage system or area will be cheap, then I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap.

I realize this is a bit of a slippery slope. But it could something as simple as a keyed lock on a closet. Point is that guns aren't laying on the coffee table for them to be accidentally picked up or easily stolen.

Quote:

A used handgun or rifle would not be anywhere near a couple hundred bucks here in NC.

Well, it wouldn't have been a few months ago...

Really? I can't find a 1911 .45 anywhere for less than $400...and those are the junk ones!

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

I'm all for education/safety training. Many years ago when I tested to get my BFSC card in California I was told you had to get <x> correct out of <y> questions (I forget the exact numbers), however there were a number of questions where the correct answer was so blindingly obvious that I thought getting even one of those wrong should disqualify you. So sure, make the hurdles to get a gun higher in areas where there will be a payoff.

What I have a problem with in the above is mainly the letters of reference and Dr.'s note. What if everyone you know and/or Dr. is anti-gun, or at least not pro-gun enough to want to get involved? What if they fear (rationally or otherwise) that somehow attesting that you're okay to have a firearm will get them roped into court (especially Civil) should you do something unlawful with your firearm, or even fail to secure it properly so it gets stolen then used in a crime? And Dr.s would have the added threat of malpractice suits hanging over them.

That also assumes the person actually /had/ a regular Dr. they'd been going to for years. For far too many that is not the case, for whatever reason.

I'm personally fine with most things suggested in the other threads, such as closing the private seller loophole, make education/training mandatory, mandating safe storage criteria. And having regular 'refresher' tests sounds like a promising idea. The details of all of these can be hammered out and tweaked. However I have a problem in principal with needing to get character references and a Dr.'s note to permit purchase, and can't see a way for those requirements to be tailored to remove that objection for me.

Your poor, can afford a handgun, can afford ammunition, and a trip to the farm??! You sure you're poor?

I realize this is a bit of a slippery slope. But it could something as simple as a keyed lock on a closet. Point is that guns aren't laying on the coffee table for them to be accidentally picked up or easily stolen.

Really? I can't find a 1911 .45 anywhere for less than $400...and those are the junk ones!

The pawn shops here were full of serviceable guns on the cheap. I'm sure the prices are now up, though.

A High Point C9 was well under $200 new in the box.

__________________What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

And what happens when a doctor does make such a statement...and someone inevitably goes on a shooting rampage. First thing that will happen is they will look up which doctor made such a statement regarding the shooter. Its a huge liability issue.

Doctors would be protected from liability.

ETA: Much in the same way that the County and Local Sheriff's who approve these permit applications are not held liable if they miss something.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Those proposals are even more stringent that what is required in the UK. Here there is no fingerprinting or photographing, no doctors reference required, only two referees are used and there is no obligatory or even voluntary safety course.

Yes and No. Everything you say is true, but omits probably the most significant requirement to get a license in the UK: A good reason, that is not self-defence. The requirement of a reason, combined with general culture, means that very few people have a firearms certificate.
In addition, there are some weapons for which you simply cannot get a license for in the UK (in particular, handguns), which are commonplace in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

I realize that...I designed them to intentionally be stringent. Remember, I based this off of the NY law for a handgun permit that is already in place, with a few added requirements (doctor note, renewals, secure area).

I put in each requirement for a reason.

The doctors note does not have to be specific at all. Let's say an applicant does have a mental condition, the doctor simply states that he feels the applicant cannot safely handle a firearm. Period.

I think that the doctors note would be quite hard to get, unless the law included a lot of language to shield the doctor from liability if the applicant kills or injures someone. I can well imagine a general practitioner, with no particular expertise in mental health, refusing to provide a note without referring the applicant to a psychiatrist.

Requiring secure keeping is a good idea - rather surprising it isn't required already.

I'm 46, always been employed as a software engineer, and could not come up with a doctor that meets that requirement.

Most of this is either subjective or rubber stamping, yet a real nuisance. What sheriff is trained in detecting people that will shoot up a school? I assert no one in the world can do that, let alone a sheriff. On the other hand, I tend to suspect there are plenty of sheriff's out there that have biases against people with certain skin, speech patterns, or what have you (that's not an accusation of the office, but of people - people are biased). We have that situation right now in CA. Each county's sheriff gets to decide whether somebody gets a CCW or not. In my county, the sheriff denies almost every person that applies. In other counties, they are more reasonable (in my view, I moved from CO which is a "shall issue" state).

And really, except for the absurd time and location restrictions, who can't come up with 4 people to vouch for them? I dunno, I think that if I was a criminal intent on trafficking in weapons for nefarious reasons I'd get 4 similar pals to vouch for me, and I, of course, would vouch for them.

I moved to my current location in July. I can't find 4 people in this county that could reasonably testify for me. I'm lucky in that a college roommate lives here, so that would be one, but that is luck. I just moved here, how would I know anyone that lived here for 3 years or more?

I can think of tons of people that could not meet the 4 references conditions for other reasons, though. Consider anyone that is a minority but became a resident of the US. How many friends of multiple years that are also US citizens do you suppose they have? Along those lines, how many might not speak English well enough to be interviewed by a sheriff (the friends and the person applying)?

The lack of training, and unsafe handling that I see is certainly scary. OTOH, I don't see how that meets your goal of "So using this model, we can tweak this system a bit to make it much, much more difficult to have firearms of any type get into the "wrong" hands."

On the safety side (again, I share your concern), we have no training or restriction on nail guns. You can go to Home Depot and buy one. In 2005, there were 14,800 reported injuries. That's fewer than guns, but in the same general ballpark. I guess some would argue for licensing there, as well. I have no interest in arguing about that, but prefer a world where we accept some risk, even when it in nonideal, over government regulation on every last thing I do.

In any case, your proposals would restrict legal ownership to mostly English speaking people with highly stable lives, and lucky enough to get along with the sheriff. I've passed multiple national security clearance checks, but couldn't meet your rules. I own multi-thousand dollar pistols purpose built for a sport (bullseye) that cannot reliably shoot off the shelf ammo because they are built for a different bullet/powder configuration. I was trained by my father to shoot, again by the army, again in a safe handling class (which was government approved, and entirely worthless, btw, as the teacher exhibited quite unsafe behavior), again by a bullseye league that put me through training, a test, and a trial period. I'm not a person you have to worry about, yet I could not get a gun based on these rules. An aspiring criminal with 4 buddies? Easy peasy.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Won't the subject of this judgement want to sue, since this judgement will pretty much ruin their life?

This just gave me another thought : say you're a Dr. and you feel a patient isn't 'stable' enough to purchase a firearm. Would you then have a fear that the patient, upon finding out you red-stamped their application, would track you down and harm you? After all, they aren't stable enough to own a firearm in your eyes, so just how much of a practical danger do they pose to you specifically?

I realize that Dr.'s probably already have to deal with similar issues (say if they've sent a patient on a 72 hr commit), so I'm not tossing this out as a 'for sure this is what will happen' alarmist scenario. It's simply another factor which would need to be considered up front, and another which to my mind makes requiring character references/Dr.'s note a poor and/or unworkable idea.

By magic? Its that simple? Inevitably if you try to provide immunity in the language of whatever law you pass it is not likely to cover negligence on the doctors part. So there is nearly always an avenue for legal action in a case like this. Clearly if the doctor gave a clean bill of health to a mass murderer it would not be out of the realm of possibility for someone to bring a suit claiming negligence. It does not even matter if the suit is won. The cost of legal defense is enough to likely make doctors gun shy (no pun intended) regarding issuing such statements.

And if you do provide enough language in the law so that all doctors get 100% immunity criminally and civilly even in cases of clear negligence...then that will have consequences as well.

But that is only half the story. What about conscience? You are putting the assessment of risk of individuals owning guns on the shoulders of doctors. Character references are one thing. But asking a trained professional to get right in the middle of this process and make an assessment of the nature you propose could be problematic.Now I am not a doctor...so I wont speak for them...but I think it might be a tough sell for many.

We do have doctors that post here. I am sure some may chime in on whether they would place themselves in this position. They may well fee compelled to do so given the state of things currently. Who knows.

My experience with this is from a very different angle...but related. I work on aircraft for a living. There is much liability in aircraft maintenance. We fix or repair things and then make legal statements regarding the repairs. But we refrain from making statements about the aircraft as a whole and we refrain from making statements regarding the future of the aircraft. So that is what is driving my objection.

I really don't like 4 character references. I really don't know if I could come up with 4 and I am a super upstanding citizen. A gun "nut" could easily get 4 other gun "nuts" to vouch for them.

I imagine if this regulation were in effect, most gun ranges would promptly host weekly "Reference Party" events for their members. Show up on Tuesday night, the range manager hands out reference forms to everyone who comes through the door, and you all take turns signing off on each other. That, plus "range member since [at least 3 years ago]" on your membership card should satisfy the law nicely.

I should also point out that in many places you can rent a gun and shoot it at the range.

There's little to stop a maniac from renting a gun and then going on a murder spree...

Well, except for the others at the range...but he could theoretically just leave with the gun...

Any range I've been to requires you to have a friend present if you want to rent - I think to dissuade suicides, not thefts. Your point stands, of course, but there is a slight impediment here.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir